Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Arus808]

I don't validate "CT claims."

No, that is WHAT you are doing.

I look for validation of the official story and find it sorely lacking.

TO YOU.

Fortunately, the real explanation (its NOT AN OFFICIAL STORY!) of what happened IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. That is what we call validation.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't validate "CT claims."

Clearly. You just accept them at face value. And then when you have the truth shoved down your throat, you move on like nothing happened.

 

[DGM]

Swing,
The house does not like the odds that the list of errors you are amassing will be corrected by Mark.

In fact the house set the odds for just this example at a whopping 25-1. There's Stundiedollars to made here people. All Mark has to do is admit the error and change his paper. The house thinks otherwise.

Why would you make this comment?

A couple of weeks ago you pointed out an error that Mark had made. Did he not acknowledge this and make the correction?

Why would you imply that he does not address questions concerning the accuracy of his work? You know this is not true.

This statement does not hold well for your integrity and I hope you can refrain from this in the future.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Hey, Champ, you said that Gravy did not address it, and you lied. Why you moving the goalposts? C'mon Swing, at least have the guts to admit you were wrong. C'mon Swing:
Now Swing, why the heck would I want to make your life easier. However, admit you lied, and I will do so.

Lets check your facts now: here is my comment:

Mark does do a great job of listing accounts of all of the trivial things that were found by people on the scene, including seat cushions, tickets, airplane parts (sorry no planers), etc, but fails to include the accounts of Bellone and De Masi. Why?

Now if you would 16.5, show me where he addresses this particular issue here: 9/11 Aircraft Parts and Contents Recovered in NYC. This is the only mention of the black boxes within this paper:

The flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the WTC planes were not recovered. Workers were advised to be on the lookout for them.

If you can not show me where he addresses the issue, you can recant your accusation calling me a liar or I can ignore you.

And why your contemplating that, have you determined if Demasi a liar or not?

 

[Swing Dangler]

False dilemma. He could just be mistaken. You should be quite familiar with that option by now.

Has he retracted his statement of what he saw? I didn't think so.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Ladies and gentlemen...the next error...

The source: No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns

As a casual reader I would expect to read about no evidence on exterior columns as the title suggests. The title suggests the entire WTC complex, however, the evidence presented is from WTC 7 only.
This title is of course very very deceptive. Mark's next sentence:

Contrary to some CT claims, the outer columns of WTC 7 that are visible in debris photos do not show signs of being sheared by explosives.

So in this regards the title of the page does not match the evidence presented by Mark: 3 grainy pictures from WTC 7 only. The pictures are not sourced and appear to have been manipulated wtih words inserted into the picture. The link describing the construction process is a dead link.

Finally, the only way to factually make the statement No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columnsis to chemically test the debris for evidence of explosives.

 

[DGM]

Swing:
Why would the USG hide the boxes if they found them? Couldn't they just fake the results to take the heat off them?

You really need to start thinking a little more logically, your not doing so well.

 

[The Big Dog]

"If you can not show me where he addresses the issue, you can recant your accusation calling me a liar or I can ignore you."

Well I sure can, in fact there was a link to it way up there ^^^

Oh wait, I get it! You are telling us that what you meant was That “Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

Kinda like: “the buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!” Remember that gem, Swing, from this very thread!

As for “have you determined if Demasi a liar or not.” Have I? No I have not. I do, however, find his account extremely dubious. But you, I assume, do not. As such, why are sitting there! Get up, get out, track this man down. Do it, do it right now. Issue a FOIA request. Contact those lawyers who gave the speeches at the NIST update. Do something!

God speed!

Oh wait, it is raining. Too bad.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:
Why would the USG hide the boxes if they found them? Couldn't they just fake the results to take the heat off them?

You really need to start thinking a little more logically, your not doing so well.

At this point, the title of the thread is The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread. I'm not going to speculate on factors that motivate Federal officials to make certain decisions in an attempt to have the thread derailed.

If you care to start a new thread, I would be happy to visit.

 

[Swing Dangler]

"If you can not show me where he addresses the issue, you can recant your accusation calling me a liar or I can ignore you."

Well I sure can, in fact there was a link to it way up there ^^^

Nice dodge. It wasn't addressed in the paper I'm critiquing now.

Oh wait, I get it! You are telling us that what you meant was That “Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

Kinda like: “the buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!” Remember that gem, Swing, from this very thread!

As for “have you determined if Demasi a liar or not.” Have I? No I have not. I do, however, find his account extremely dubious.

So you do not take the man's word for it, correct? Then shouldn't you be the one to track him down?

Welcome to ignore.

 

[Pookster]

Has he retracted his statement of what he saw? I didn't think so.

Can you quote Nicholas DeMasi's statement in 2004? I've not seen it, just references to a book in 2003.

If he did actually say something in 2004, I suspect he hasn't retracted it, but how does that change your false dilemma? He still could be mistaken. His story certainly stretches credulity. I mean, him finding three of the four boxes in that debris pile? It's an extraordinary claim that going to take some extraordinary substantiation and evidence to rule out that he's not mistaken.

 

[The Big Dog]

Swing Sez: "So you do not take the man's word for it, correct? Then shouldn't you be the one to track him down?"

Nope. But you aren't gonna do anything either, now are you?

"Welcome to ignore."

Giggle! The Truth movement at its finest!

 

[Pookster]

Swing Sez: "So you do not take the man's word for it, correct? Then shouldn't you be the one to track him down?"

Nope. But you aren't gonna do anything either, now are you?

"Welcome to ignore."

Giggle! The Truth movement at its finest!

I wonder if he said he saw body of King Kong in the debris if he would just assume the man is correct. I mean, it is the man's word ... and stuff.

 

[johnny karate]

Welcome to ignore.

He said the same thing to evidence and critical thinking.

 

[LashL]

The source: No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns

As a casual reader I would expect to read about no evidence on exterior columns as the title suggests. The title suggests the entire WTC complex, however, the evidence presented is from WTC 7 only.
This title is of course very very deceptive.

How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7 ​

and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"

​

And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns

 

[Pookster]

How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7 ​

and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"

​

And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns

I think he needs to be less "casual" in his reading.

 

[johnny karate]

Swingie baby, you're just god awful at this.

 

[The Big Dog]

How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7 ​

and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"

​

And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns

hey I can add another one:

“Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

“The buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!”

"Gravy did not say he was talking about WTC7 except where he said he was talking about WTC7 (i.e. the title, the index, and the first line of the article itself.)"

I swear this guy is disinfo! Nobody can be THIS bad!

 

[Swing Dangler]

Can you quote Nicholas DeMasi's statement in 2004? I've not seen it, just references to a book in 2003.

If he did actually say something in 2004, I suspect he hasn't retracted it, but how does that change your false dilemma? He still could be mistaken. His story certainly stretches credulity. I mean, him finding three of the four boxes in that debris pile? It's an extraordinary claim that going to take some extraordinary substantiation and evidence to rule out that he's not mistaken.

I accept your false dilemma point as he could be mistaken.

What factual reason can you offer to support the contention that he is lying or mistaken?

And remember, I can use that same stretch of credulity argument in reference to a hijacker's paper passport. ie. which is stretches the credulity more?
Black box versus paper passport?

 

[johnny karate]

I accept your false dilemma point as he could be mistaken.

What factual reason can you offer to support the contention that he is lying or mistaken?

How about the fact that his claim is unsubstantiated?

And remember, I can use that same stretch of credulity argument in reference to a hijacker's paper passport. ie. which is stretches the credulity more?
Black box versus paper passport?

And it was pointed out to you that this is a false analogy. It's the difference between one person finding 75% of the black boxes, and a single passport being found at all. There is no valid comparison.